In the 1997 re-match against Deep Blue (Game two), The IBM team cheated by having one of there chess experts behind the scenes spot a standard computer move as a potential loss, and changed it. Kasparov 'having been able to get a good idea of how Deep Blue played' spotted the move and called them out on it after the match, but they refused to release the computer logs (because they knew they cheated). Even now with computers that could piss all over Deep Blue, they still fail to post that 'deep blue move' as the best option. Kasparov knew what they had done and was distracted for the rest of the match and just drew the rest. Its sad that the IBM people couldn't admit they had failed a second time.
I watched the documentary "Game Over." And I also think IBM may have cheated. That same group of programmers lost to Kasparov a few times and they were sick of it. Plus they had pressure from IBM to win in 1997 for publicity and stock price potential earnings... Joel Benjamin was the Grand Master behind the scenes with Deep Blue and the actual processor for the cpu was in another room and the moves were relayed to the screen where the actual match was taking place, a very convenient arrangement, too bad for Kasparov, he should have agreed to rules that were less in IBM's favor, start with playing at a neutral site or don't agree to it. But Kasparov may have been overconfident and figured he would win no matter what. Kasparov knew that the computer was playing different with each game and not using the same calculations and analysis from game 1 (which he won). The move that was particularly controversial was in Game 2, move 37: Bishop to e4. First of all the computer took 15 minutes to make the move, and that was already unusual, and it was a deep positional move unlike what computers normally did at the time, and unlike the playing style of Deep Blue. IBM later released the game logs way after the fact, but the interface and logs could have easily been doctored, remember money was at stake and the IBM programmers wanted to make a name for themselves and feed their families...
It was proven years later there wasn't any cheating going on despite the accusations. Not allowing Kasparov to see logs from previous games it played is unfair. Given how much study Deep Blue could have of his. The so called "human move" Kasparov complained about early on was the result of a glitch. The computer didn't know what to do. So it made a random move. It just happened to be entirely unexpected and unsettled Kasparov. That moment no doubt won it for Deep Blue.
Mitjitsu A glitch?? It just happened to play a masterful positional move that killed off Kasparov's counterplay. Very Karpovian move. Not random at all, dont ve ridoculous.
Mitjitsu Either Deep Blue really made the great move or a human behind the scenes, glitch is bullshit. Out of all the pissible move its random move happens to be super strong. Yeah ok.
It's really deep blue + human vs kasparov. All programmers including grandmasters focus to read and defeat kasparov's way of playing. There is report that they still can change the program during the tournament. It's really not fair for kasparov. This distracted him while machine dont have this emotion disadvantages
Indeed. We still have people running in races, just because a machine like a car can beat any human for speed shouldn't detract from the human endeavour.
And Fritz 3 (playing black) on a Pentium 90MHz (1-core!) crushed Deep Blue in Hong Kong, two years before Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in '97., just sayin'.
What is really the difference? It's in principle the same. The little, but crucial differences, in my opinion, are (1) learning and thus experience (although computers can do that as well), (2) specialization through the course of evolution (unbeatable), and (3) a certain degree of randomness.
I don't think there is such a thing as 3000+ Players rated around 2800 so rarely make mistakes ... and this is with all the rating inflation. Fischer was playing near flawless around 2785.
The exact method of the Turk's operation is unknown except for one out Terri people in the world. As a magicisn and a chess player, I think the means by which the Turk (specifically) is far from obvious
"Deep Blue should be disqualified for cheating. What the computer is doing - in it's virtual mind - is leaving the play to study every possible move on an exact copy of reality within itself. If Kasparov were allowed to do the virtual 'same thing'; in our dimension, it would be called cheating." (RAS IV) "It's like calling up your buddies for a tip during play."
+Richard Sockey IV By that definition all competition is cheating. I was cheated out of a baseball scholarship because guys born with more fast twitch muscle in their arm from genetics had an unfair advantage over me, as if their arm was augmented by robot parts.
To me this whole human race vs machine is BS this doesnt mean this machine is better than or can actually think like the human mind... just mean this tool for chess has been perfected to the point where it will never lose maybe just draw logically..
Creating a computer that will beat humans at chess? So what? Good for you. Ultimately chess is intended to be a game for humans, no? Someone who knows nothing about the semi-glorious computer victory is still able to enjoy the game and play without a second thought that, in the end, it is only a game. I play better than you today or you play better than I. One human plays better than all others and can still be world champion. A computer better than humans at a game. So what? No celebration here
a calculator is smarter and faster whats the difference here the computer can rapidly calculate every moves outcome faster and more efficient just like a calculator
Oh a computer beats a human wow then how come the same human spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the same computer few years after THIS MATCH ON Y2K just because of a ZEROS wow WHAT A WOUNDERFUL WORLD of computers I am speechless computer counts ya right buddy....
kasparov's genius lay in playing chess - not in medicine what the HELL are you blabbering about? do you seriously think that intelligence is something linear and if you are good at one field you are automatically good at other fields? LOL
I love how the media and Hollywood treat computers like they are aliens from another planet. Humans are the ones who invented computers. Why would anyone cheer for a COMPUTER? The computer doesnt care or is even aware of your praise. A human is and can feel it. And chess is mathematical not artistic. Playing Chess is one of the least creative things you can do.
![ROSÉ (로제) - number one girl [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A9oByH9Ci24/mqdefault.jpg)
In the 1997 re-match against Deep Blue (Game two), The IBM team cheated by having one of there chess experts behind the scenes spot a standard computer move as a potential loss, and changed it. Kasparov 'having been able to get a good idea of how Deep Blue played' spotted the move and called them out on it after the match, but they refused to release the computer logs (because they knew they cheated). Even now with computers that could piss all over Deep Blue, they still fail to post that 'deep blue move' as the best option. Kasparov knew what they had done and was distracted for the rest of the match and just drew the rest. Its sad that the IBM people couldn't admit they had failed a second time.
I watched the documentary "Game Over." And I also think IBM may have cheated. That same group of programmers lost to Kasparov a few times and they were sick of it. Plus they had pressure from IBM to win in 1997 for publicity and stock price potential earnings... Joel Benjamin was the Grand Master behind the scenes with Deep Blue and the actual processor for the cpu was in another room and the moves were relayed to the screen where the actual match was taking place, a very convenient arrangement, too bad for Kasparov, he should have agreed to rules that were less in IBM's favor, start with playing at a neutral site or don't agree to it. But Kasparov may have been overconfident and figured he would win no matter what. Kasparov knew that the computer was playing different with each game and not using the same calculations and analysis from game 1 (which he won). The move that was particularly controversial was in Game 2, move 37: Bishop to e4. First of all the computer took 15 minutes to make the move, and that was already unusual, and it was a deep positional move unlike what computers normally did at the time, and unlike the playing style of Deep Blue. IBM later released the game logs way after the fact, but the interface and logs could have easily been doctored, remember money was at stake and the IBM programmers wanted to make a name for themselves and feed their families...
It was proven years later there wasn't any cheating going on despite the accusations. Not allowing Kasparov to see logs from previous games it played is unfair. Given how much study Deep Blue could have of his. The so called "human move" Kasparov complained about early on was the result of a glitch. The computer didn't know what to do. So it made a random move. It just happened to be entirely unexpected and unsettled Kasparov. That moment no doubt won it for Deep Blue.
Mitjitsu A glitch?? It just happened to play a masterful positional move that killed off Kasparov's counterplay. Very Karpovian move. Not random at all, dont ve ridoculous.
Mitjitsu Either Deep Blue really made the great move or a human behind the scenes, glitch is bullshit. Out of all the pissible move its random move happens to be super strong. Yeah ok.
It's really deep blue + human vs kasparov. All programmers including grandmasters focus to read and defeat kasparov's way of playing. There is report that they still can change the program during the tournament. It's really not fair for kasparov. This distracted him while machine dont have this emotion disadvantages
The official name of this video is "The Chip vs the Chessmaster". It is no longer available from PBS or WGBH Boston as far as I can tell.
Thankyou so much for this video.....I watched it around 16 years ago in high school and have been looking for it ever since...:))))))
Thanks for posting the video. Really liked it as a Kasparov fan. I have Deep Rybka 4, wish to see it play Garry!
Why I'm I watching this at 4am
Indeed. We still have people running in races, just because a machine like a car can beat any human for speed shouldn't detract from the human endeavour.
Just in case anyone else is looking for the name of this programme, it is "The Chip vs. The Chess Master."
Thank you!
@4:06 Frank Yang astonishing me as always.
for the machine this "game of chess" is nothing but scripts, encryption codes, and math algorithms
And Fritz 3 (playing black) on a Pentium 90MHz (1-core!) crushed Deep Blue in Hong Kong, two years before Deep Blue defeated Kasparov in '97., just sayin'.
6:08 holy shit, Garry was handsome as hell....
That was the year when digital world started, I watched this over and over,
Computers calculate but people think.
What is really the difference? It's in principle the same. The little, but crucial differences, in my opinion, are (1) learning and thus experience (although computers can do that as well), (2) specialization through the course of evolution (unbeatable), and (3) a certain degree of randomness.
People think they think.
People bluff
fantastic comment mr. white...i think so too
Could you sort the playlist and add part 4. There seem to be gaps and no conclusion in the series, part three is duplicated!?
Is the woman interviewing Feng-Hsiung Hsu @3:50 Christiane Amanpour?
What a clear line of thought. You should be a philosopher.
Great video, thank you!
In my opinion the chess computer is so far the greatest achievement of computer science.
This is really humorous to watch in the days of Starcraft 2.
This narrator is Peter Thomas, the same guy on the TV show Forensic Files, in case it sounds familiar.
And the hit song "19"
"We prefer to think of Kasparov as the willing participant in an experiment trying to measure the human limitation in chess intelligence."
--ok :D
I don't think there is such a thing as 3000+ Players rated around 2800 so rarely make mistakes ... and this is with all the rating inflation. Fischer was playing near flawless around 2785.
Can anybody confirm to me that the narrator of this doc is the same as in forensic files, Peter Thomas?
The constant camera flashing would have broken my concentration. Good thing Kasparov isn't light sensitive or he would have lost to Deep Thought.
3:52 Isn't tht d same guy who developed 'Deep Blue ' ?
Even d guy at 5:34
Yes, check description
The exact method of the Turk's operation is unknown except for one out Terri people in the world. As a magicisn and a chess player, I think the means by which the Turk (specifically) is far from obvious
WHAT IS THE MUSIC AT 10:00 ?!?! please tell me!!!
This narrator has an *EPIC* voice.
In terms of Chess Garry Kasparov is the best! Computers doesn't have intuition so I am still rooting for the man!
Have they ever tried getting two of these computers to play each other?
They have, and that's how we got AlphaZero.
7:40 lol kasparov was a shy, socially awkward man in his younger days, constant stutter and looking down while talking in front of audience
technique speaking if it were a matter of life or death man would beat machine with a louisville slugger, man wins everytime
lukefenderrhodes not against robocop
"Deep Blue should be disqualified for cheating. What the computer is doing - in it's virtual mind - is leaving the play to study every possible move on an exact copy of reality within itself. If Kasparov were allowed to do the virtual 'same thing'; in our dimension, it would be called cheating." (RAS IV) "It's like calling up your buddies for a tip during play."
+Richard Sockey IV By that definition all competition is cheating. I was cheated out of a baseball scholarship because guys born with more fast twitch muscle in their arm from genetics had an unfair advantage over me, as if their arm was augmented by robot parts.
there are many chess engine tournaments including world champion
meah nowadays it's common to be beaten by the computer when playing any game :)
Bach-Brandenburg Concerto No 3
What's the song in 9:30?
Yep :). It's not a coincidence.
That laugh
Sure! Technological singularity.
Kasparov looks like Lou Ferrigno before he worked out...lol
I think the machine never will get sense of humour, so that Kasparov is the champion.
Computers don't have an ego . . .
No not until they patch the game. Damned recommended specs. ;-)
Read description.
Anyone notice 10:23
It's using an integrated graphics chip from 1989...
Sooo, probably not, lol.
Deep thought grandfather of Alfazero
Is it just me or does the guy at 2:20 look just like Costanza
humans can still play chess even without electricity
they do mean deep blue when they say deep thought right ?
No. Deep Thought came before Deep Blue.
To me this whole human race vs machine is BS this doesnt mean this machine is better than or can actually think like the human mind... just mean this tool for chess has been perfected to the point where it will never lose maybe just draw logically..
One day computers will be more HUMAN than we are. YEAH think about it. it will happen.
@Nerpha Of course, there is a computer chess championship every year!! Ich think Deep Rybka 4 is the best, has an Elo of about 3300
Without input there would be no output.
+Jason Roggasch A statement of the obvious.
+Jason Roggasch Same goes for humans as well
@924142707 the computer are autonomous almost entirely
Mr. Bean the chessmaster
Deep Tought?
The hitchhikers guide to the galxy?
someone?
: )
Now STOCKFISH will eat kasparov or carlsen
Look at the geeks who created 'Deep Thought'. Of course they know Douglas Adams :).
forensic files narrator ha
Damn dude, I think I got cancer after reading that.
just pull the plug...
the Deep Blue team definitely cheated in 97
Creating a computer that will beat humans at chess? So what? Good for you. Ultimately chess is intended to be a game for humans, no? Someone who knows nothing about the semi-glorious computer victory is still able to enjoy the game and play without a second thought that, in the end, it is only a game. I play better than you today or you play better than I. One human plays better than all others and can still be world champion. A computer better than humans at a game. So what? No celebration here
of course dude easily
a calculator is smarter and faster whats the difference here the computer can rapidly calculate every moves outcome faster and more efficient just like a calculator
evaluation
deep blue*
wow you don't understand sarcasm
Fritz or rybka would destroy deep thought- u buy it in a store
but can he do politics?
What's up with the Indian scientist. He looks interestingly white!
very weird face red hair and indian hair..also the famous accent
Kasparov is the best chess player who ever lived? Wrong! It's Carl Magus!
Magnus wasn’t yet born then
@@Jump-n-smash it's Magus
Oh a computer beats a human wow then how come the same human spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the same computer few years after THIS MATCH ON Y2K just because of a ZEROS wow WHAT A WOUNDERFUL WORLD of computers I am speechless computer counts ya right buddy....
kasparov's genius lay in playing chess - not in medicine
what the HELL are you blabbering about? do you seriously think that intelligence is something linear and if you are good at one field you are automatically good at other fields? LOL
This proved nothing. A computer chose the correct moves, but it didn't know why.
A computer that is good at math??? Shocking.
I love how the media and Hollywood treat computers like they are aliens from another planet. Humans are the ones who invented computers. Why would anyone cheer for a COMPUTER? The computer doesnt care or is even aware of your praise. A human is and can feel it. And chess is mathematical not artistic. Playing Chess is one of the least creative things you can do.